* (1600)

Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that

"WHEREAS the Canadian Senate is both anti-democratic and of no real benefit to taxpayers; and

"WHEREAS the Senate defends the interests of the parties that appoint the senators not the regions that it was supposed to represent; and

"WHEREAS the Senate costs over $55 million annually much of it for clearly partisan activities of the appointed members; and

"WHEREAS for decades Canadians have called for changes or the abolishment of the Senate; and

"WHEREAS appointments to the Senate by both the Conservative and Liberal party have long been made on the basis of a record of being either loyal party fundraisers or past party provincial leaders; and

"WHEREAS senators do not even have to show up in Ottawa to be paid and one Ontario Liberal Senator a past leader of the Ontario Liberals has shown up twice in the last two years and did not show up between October 1990 and January 1994 but collected his full salary; and

"WHEREAS even Liberal Cabinet Ministers such as Lloyd Axworthy have noted that in a democracy having an appointed body to legislate is not appropriate and the Senate should be abolished.

"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba go on record as recommending that the Senate be abolished."

Motion presented.

Mr. Maloway: Mr. Acting Speaker, it is surprising to me that in 1997 we should still be debating the issue of the Senate after all these years of a useless body such as that. It is surprising to me that a useless body such as that should still be operating in its current mode.

Now over the years we have had a collection of various Tory and Liberal political types suggest changes to the Senate, and there have been suggestions over the years that we go to an elected Senate, and there have been other suggestions that have been made about reform of the Senate. Fundamentally, Mr. Acting Speaker, people in the NDP over the years, since the days of Stanley Knowles, have long taken a more direct approach to the problem that we see with the Senate, and we realize that you cannot reform this type of body. We have called consistently and loudly over the years for the abolishment of the Senate. Mr. Acting Speaker, the sooner that is done, I think, the better off the whole country will be.

In fact, people such as Lloyd Axworthy, during the recent election, took a position in favour of abolishing the Senate, which was surprising in a way because Lloyd Axworthy is a loyal member of the current federal Liberal cabinet. So, when people such as Axworthy start taking that position, then there may be some hope that within our lifetime here in the Chamber that this body may in fact be abolished.

Unfortunately, we have too many other people who have an interest, a direct interest in seeing that the Senate remains as it is. We only have to look at our current Liberal Party in Manitoba and the history of that Liberal Party to see why that is so. One of the major attractions of people who have over the years--and the list since I have been around of Liberal Party leaders is so long I can hardly remember them all. They rarely stay around for any length of time. But what they know is that upon their ascension to the helm as Liberal leader, that good times may not be with them as leaders of the Liberal Party. They may not enjoy political wealth while they are leaders of the Liberal Party, but they know that good times are just around the corner, because they know that ultimately they will be an appointment to the Senate or some other plum will come their way.

We only have to look at the previous Leader of the Liberal Party here in Manitoba, one Sharon Carstairs, who got her reward and is happily, happily sitting in the Senate keeping in the family tradition. I believe her father was a senator and she is following in the tradition of her father. At her age, the new senator from Manitoba, who is now living in Ottawa, stands to be a senator, unelected, for 20, 25 years because I think she is in the 50-, 55-year range and she can sit there unelected until she is 75 years old. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Carstairs, recently in a November 6 news article in the Free Press, evidently states that Canadians get great value in the Senate.

Now, you know, I talked to a lot of my constituents and, quite frankly, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not think very many of them could name any of the Manitoba senators that are currently sitting. For example, Senator Carstairs may, in fact, be known to some people, but Duncan Jessiman would not be known by my constituents; Janis Johnson; Gildas Molgat--once again, Gildas Molgat is another sainted Liberal Party Leader, one of the many; Mira Spivak and Terry Stratton. So my constituents or the constituents of Transcona or anywhere else, the Deputy Premier's (Mr. Downey) constituents, I do not think very many of them could name one or two of the Manitoba senators.

On the other hand, Mr. Acting Speaker, when it comes to the members of Parliament, I think that their constituents could name a few more of the members of Parliament. I think a number of constituents would know, my constituents would know, the name of Reg Alcock, for example. The constituents of the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) may know the name of Reg Alcock, Lloyd Axworthy, Bill Blaikie, Ron Duhamel, John Harvard. There are a number of federal M.P.s who are elected, who would be known by the constituents.

My point is that the M.P.s are elected by the people; they are accountable to the people; they have to take positions; they deal with constituents; they solve constituents problems. The senators, on the other hand, are appointed people, most of them unknown to the public, unaccountable to the public, have nothing much to do with the public as a matter of fact, and are sent to Ottawa for a lifetime appointment. That is absolutely unfair that we would have this privilege, this elitism at its best, in the Canadian parliamentary system. I mean this is the type of body, this is the type of arrangement that makes people upset about the way the country functions.

I mean, I think, people can understand. They may not like federal members of Parliament pensions and federal members of Parliament perks. They may not like the MLAs' perks and salaries, but when it comes to the senators, that is a different matter. They have absolutely nobody to complain to. They cannot unelect. If they are unhappy with the performance of an MLA or an M.P., they have the option of voting them out at the next election, but you do not have that option, Mr. Acting Speaker, with Terry Stratton or Sharon Carstairs or Duncan Jessiman. They are there, regardless of what they do or do not do until age 75.

* (1610)

Now, I do not want to suggest for a moment that all of the senators just simply collect their pay and do nothing. Some of them are quite active. Some of these honourable members are bagmen and bagwomen for their political parties. They toiled in those trenches, in those corporate boardrooms, picking up those $10,000 cheques on behalf of their parties, and at a certain point in their existence, if they were effective at doing what they were doing, they got appointed to the Senate, and now for a paltry $65,000 or so and a few dozen trips across the country, their lives are a little easier now when they go picking up those cheques because they get paid for doing it. So it is amazing.

I mean, Mr. Acting Speaker, I always thought that the bagmen work for the parties and should actually be reimbursed or paid by the parties, but here we have them on the public payroll. Here we have the public treasury, the Canadian public paying for Liberal and Tory bagmen to go out and raise money for their parties, all at the expense of the public. That is another type of senator that we see in the Senate that the public are not happy about.

So we have senators who are residing in Mexico who have not shown up for years. We have that group of senators who feel they do not even have to show up and, in fact, I believe that particular fellow feels that the Senate should be reformed. I would like to know what ideas he has for reform. Then we have our political hacks and bagmen in the Senate. Then we have another Liberal senator here, February 12, 1997, in the Winnipeg Sun, who was praising Hitler, so that will give you some idea of how up to date some of these senators are on the issues. Some of these senators are so far behind in history and ideas that one wonders what is going there.

There is a constant battle between the Liberals and the Tories to see who can have the most senators and who can stack the senators. Mulroney, when he got elected, I mean, all of a sudden his tune changed. As he got close to the majority of senators, he started to like the Senate a lot more. Now what you find, as the Liberals have taken over the Senate, now you find the Tory enthusiasm for the Senate has kind of diminished a little bit and, on that basis, I am hoping today that the Tory members opposite might see it within themselves to take a different attitude here on abolishing the Senate since most of them will never see it or will never have a chance to be in it because, the way things are going here, the Liberals may be in power here for many, many terms.

So what you will see--the member, the Attorney General talks about the Manitoba Senate, and that is true. There used to be a Senate in Manitoba in the beginning. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that the enthusiasm for the Senate is in direct proportion to how close the other two parties are in government. If they are in government they are in favour of the Senate and if they are not in government then they want to see some reforms. They want to see Triple-E Senates and that is why I am hoping today that the Conservatives are quite a long ways from seeing another heyday in the Senate, so maybe they will be changing their minds on Senate reform.

Our attitude on the Senate, we have always said that when the groups were out pushing the Triple-E Senate that we were in favour of the Triple-A Senate, and that was Abolish, Abolish, and Abolish. With the history of the Senate and what little it has accomplished over the years I am hoping that there will be a consensus opinion in the public in the not too distant future to in fact abolish the Senate if we can simply pry the process away from people who have a vested interest in keeping the process the way it is, and once again we are talking about the political elites, the Liberal political elites who run Ottawa.

Now, we have another group of senators. We have lobbyists. We have an example here of a senator who was--well, we have Mr. Berntson. He has been charged in the Saskatchewan scandal. He has been quite active.

We have another case of a senator who was paid $5,000 a month for advice for seven years. That was involving Mr. José Perez who many of us know had pretty heavy involvements in Ottawa and was quite connected to senators and people in power and thought nothing of using whatever influence he could to get contracts and other governments' enterprises. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, what you have is these senators not only enjoying all the perks that this job provides, but they are not content with that. They go out and have a little job on the side here as a $5,000-a-month adviser, basically a lobbyist for their causes and for different companies.

So this is a very, very bad development, I guess. We have had to live with it for quite a number of years. The current senator, because of the situation involving Senator Thompson, I believe it is, who is domiciled at the present time in Mexico and shows no interest in coming back to even make a good show. I mean, Senator Thompson really does not care what people think about him. He thinks that it is time to reform the Senate--

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on this resolution brought forward by the member for Elmwood. I have read his resolution and have listened to him put his words on the record, and I do see some things in his resolution that I think I and probably many Manitobans and probably all Canadians can agree with.

I think though I would like to start out just by putting a couple of things on the record. In his presentation, he mentioned that the members opposite have always believed in the Triple-A, which was Abolish, Abolish, Abolish. Yet the record will show that the members opposite in an all-party Constitutional Task Force in 1991, which was signed by the honourable member for The Pas and the honourable member for Wolseley, that recommended while the current state of the Senate should be dissolved, they also brought forward the suggestion that it should be a newly elected Senate. I think that before we put on the record that one side of the House has been standing in favour of one resolution or another, that that should be put on the record.

* (1620)

That constitutional task force took place in 1991 and there was a lot of discussion around the Senate. I think, again, as his resolution has stated and I think quite clearly that if you do canvass the people of Manitoba, you will find that there is probably a consensus out there that the current Senate as it exists today should be re-evaluated, many would say probably dissolved, but many would also suggest that if it can be presented in a different form that is workable, and I refer back as he did to the Triple-E in the sense that it makes it equal and effective and elected. I think that is something that we should all consider.

I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, and I would suggest there is probably not many in here who could. I look at my colleagues and I think everyone has a different opinion on the proposal that is put forward, but I think we have to give some consideration to what would happen if we were to move on the resolution put forward today as it was put forward, and that would be strictly to abolish the Senate. I think there is a place for that second chamber. I firmly believe that, if done right and presented to the people of Canada in a proper method, they would support a Senate. They would support that sober second thought that we constantly hear about, but I think we have to give this Senate a role in which they can play, where we do take the politics out of it in the sense of political patronage. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would argue that over time and as time has progressed, it has become more and more of a political tool as opposed to the purpose that it was originally set up to serve. I think that we have to consider that when we are discussing this resolution and when we are debating it.

I think that when the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) talks about the cost of the Senate, I agree $55 million does seem extravagant. I think when we read today in the papers and throughout the last several months about the concerns that people are expressing on the Senate, I do not think you would get any argument from this side that if a person is put in a position of representation, whether he be elected or whether he be appointed, he is there to represent. I have no problem saying to the member that anyone who does not attend meetings on a regular basis and does not serve the role that he was chosen to do should be reprimanded and perhaps should be removed from that position, the idea being that if we are going to have a Senate of any kind that is functional, it has to be responsible. Whether or not you are elected, to me, would enhance the responsibility side of it.

I think the question of the Senate and its reform is indeed, you know, a concern that all Manitobans share. It is a concern that we read about in central Canada and it is always, I find, easy to base our decisions based on the negative stories that we read. I think that if we peruse history, we can find that there have been times and cases where the Senate has been a valuable tool in the protection of democracy. I do not know because of the poor examples that have been cited in the previous short while that we would want to--just with one stroke of the pen--make a decision to eliminate a body of people that were put into a position to help make representation and help make better decisions for the people of Canada, whether we should just eliminate that all without thought as to what should come or what may come next.

I have a concern that if we abolish the Senate, then we will have a very different political system in Canada in the sense where you have a strong majority in the federal government, regional concerns may be overlooked. It is certainly going to be easier to do if you have a strong majority. I think that I, as a Manitoban and Manitoba being one of the smaller populations of people in the country of Canada, would maybe be a loser in some of the concerns that we have that are affected by decisions that are made by politicians who, I think, we all agree right now, make decisions based in central Canada. Some of the policies that come forward that impact western Canada without consideration given to those impacts on western Canada would be lost. I think that is the value that the Senate can offer.

I think that it has a way of addressing some of the concerns. I think if we were to have a Senate that came out and spoke to the communities of the populations of the provinces of Canada that they might come back with better policy making, better government decisions. But I think to just abolish it without having an alternative or something that we could put in its place to serve the needs that are sometimes overlooked by huge majority governments would be a mistake. I think that definitely, as the member has stated in his resolution, Canadians have called for changes, and I think he points out quite clearly in his resolution, in one of his WHEREASes where it reads: WHEREAS for decades Canadians have called for changes or the abolishment.

I think if we canvassed the people of Canada, perhaps they would not necessarily agree to the abolishment without some other form of accountability put back into the system. I think we have to be very, very considerate and very concerned about just eliminating that body as we would like to do or as what has been suggested we do today, and I read into it--obviously I think there is maybe a touch of resentment that the opposition member brings forward in his resolution by naming strictly the senators appointed by Conservative and Liberal parties and I think to the appointment of Mr. Stan Waters in the province of Alberta who was a Reform member, stood for Reform and through the process in Alberta was identified by that province, by the people, by the majority of the people of that province to represent their interests in the Senate, and at that time the government of the day took that advice.

I think something that we should consider is maybe if we were to agree to the abolishment of the Senate, that we would want to have a system that we could present as a better system to the provinces and to the country to make it work and, again, I would suggest to represent the regions of Canada that because of their population are sometimes overlooked when large majority governments are making decisions based, in particular, on majorities based out of central Canada.

Again, I would like to, I guess, refer back to it, and I do not know, Mr. Acting Speaker, if there are any NDP members sitting in the Senate. I presume it is a concern that he has, and I would say by having an elected Senate, an equal Senate and an effective Senate, the members opposite would have the ability to at least bring forward that candidate and present that candidate for all of the people of Manitoba. Saskatchewan, with its strong provincial representation of New Democrats, may at that point have an opportunity to bring forward a candidate who would have a far better chance of getting into a Senate and representing the province or the region that he is from in a Senate than he would today. I think we have to consider those options when we are considering this resolution that has been put forward today as we see it.

I certainly concur with him. I think anybody who has been appointed or elected to a job has an obligation to serve in that position, and I think that the ones who are not doing that right now should be identified, and there should be a process to remove those people from the process, and at the same time maybe we can offer an idea of how we can bring forward the elected people to start the process that is necessary to give the representation that I think we both agree is necessary in a functional Canada. I think the idea of just getting rid of something because we are unhappy with it today or with the way that it functions is probably premature, and it should be thought out further in the sense of what--usually when you are taking something away, you have to come up with a better alternative to make it work.

* (1630)

I think that is what we should be doing in this House today, and I think that is more what we should be discussing. I think if we look at some of the laws that have been passed in Canada in recent times, had we had strong regional Senate representation, we may have had a better law or a better policy when the day was done than we have today and perhaps something that we could live with and understand a little bit better. I do not want to get into any specific policies or legislation that has been brought forward, but I think there is always some legislation out there that we as a province probably agree to not like or we dislike it right from the get go, and I think that we should be prepared through an elected Senate to have those representations brought at the highest level.

I would like to--and as I read the document that the all-party agreement signed in 1991, I think it is a very good map for us all to be following. I think we should perhaps forward this to other Canadians and other jurisdictions for consideration, because they do talk about some of the positive things that would and could happen should we abolish the Senate as it now exists. They talk about, in their comments in the paper that they put forward they said the people of Manitoba suggested, as it was now structured, it was viewed as offensive, wasteful and even dysfunctional. I do not think anybody in this particular House could disagree with that. I think that, again, when you put up an argument against something, I think you have to be prepared to put up something else, a solution to that particular problem. If we could abolish all of our problems without having a resolve to it I am not sure where we would end up as far as a government.

The new second chamber might do what the existing Senate has failed to accomplish, and I think specifically a new second chamber could respond to the desire of Manitobans to see a more equitable balancing of national and regional concerns, and I think if they were elected they would have that responsibility to the province. They would be elected by the people, and that to me seems to be the whole statement of government, being accountable to the people that elect you. I think if the Senate was presented to the people that way, then I would suggest to you that it could be a working model for all provinces and all of Canada to consider.

I would like to just thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, for the time that I have had today to put these comments on the record, and I look forward to more comments.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I certainly found the comments of my colleague very, very enlightening. I noted that he referred to the all-party Constitutional Task Force that this province had in 1991, and that task force, of course, looked at a number of government institutions or Canadian institutions. I noted, of course, as my colleague did, that this was an all-party task force wherein a Mr. Jim Carr, who was then the MLA in Crescentwood, signed this document, the MLA for Brandon West , the MLA for Wolseley, the MLA for Lac du Bonnet, the MLA for The Pas, and the MLA for St. Vital all signed this document.

I think one of the important things we have to remember about this document, whether it went anywhere or not is not so much the issue. The issue is that this reflected the wishes of the people of Manitoba, and that is something we have to bear in mind when we make decisions in the public interest or chart new directions for our country. So while that particular Senate or the Senate as it currently exists--it was advocated that that be dissolved--it certainly did indicate that a new, elected Senate should be created.

I think the desire for reform comes out of many of the abuses that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has cited in this House. There is no question that the lack of accountability of the Senate, the lack of any true, elected representatives in the Senate tends towards abuse, and I think that those are issues that need to be addressed in the Senate if the Senate is going to continue.

Now, Manitobans, as the Meech Lake Task Force concluded here in the province of Manitoba, favoured an elected, equal and more effective Senate, and, you know, the Unity Task Force that is going to be hearing from Manitobans again may raise this issue, that is, in terms of representations being made to it. I do not want to prejudge what the people of Manitoba will be telling us, whether they still favour an elected, equal and more effective Senate or whether, in fact, Manitobans wish to see an abolition of the Senate as has been proposed by the MLA for Elmwood.

I recognize that the arguments that the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has put forward are very, very compelling arguments. Many of the things that have been said certainly need to be addressed. Whether they need to be addressed by the abolition is quite another thing.

One of the presenters in the 1991 task force stated that the Senate in its present form is a disgrace. It is a national and it is becoming an international embarrassment. The cheapest, quickest and safest way to get rid of it is outright abolition and that is the recommendation that I would urge that this task force make to the government.

So this was one presenter's view, and I think the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) is expressing, I think, a similar point of view.

Others though, the majority, indicated that a new second chamber might do what the existing Senate has failed to accomplish, and that is to fulfill the desire of Manitobans to see a more equitable balancing of national and regional concerns. As one presenter suggested to that particular task force, the Senate does not service the needs of Canada for a House where the full range of our regional problems and the effect of national policies on these problems can be discussed with independence and authority.

I would hark back to some of the comments made by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), how does one provide that authority, and I say one of the ways to ensure that authority when regional voices are speaking is that the authority comes from an elected voice.

The task force, as indicated, recommended that the existing Senate be dissolved and that this new second chamber be created to replace the existing chamber. What the task force recommended as a first principle is that the new second chamber should act as a voice to speak for provincial, territorial and regional concerns, and it should be capable of reviewing the decisions made by the House of Commons. That same regional role also has been recognized in the report of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada chaired by Senator Beaudoin and Dorothy Dobbie, as she was then a Manitoba M.P. The hearings took place in 1991 as well, and I believe the report was issued in early 1992.

* (1640)

One of the points that they make in that report, as well, is that regional representation is an important function of the Senate, and so provincial and territorial governments may well find a new voice in the Senate by the capacity to have them appoint senators. The idea that regional concerns be brought forward through some form of elected process is one that certainly found favour in this particular report, and, again, that was emphasized in our task force report in 1991.

The second principle that our task force recommended back in 1991 is that members of the chamber should be elected. When we speak of authority, I think in many, many situations authority is granted, in our democracy, from the people, and the most effective way to ensure that authority is truly voicing the concerns of the people is that there be some form of an election.

As much as all of us here in this House support the idea that all Canadians are equal, whether they are of whatever background they come from, whatever sex they are, whatever part of the country they come from, they are all equal. One of the concerns, however, that has been raised recently in respect of our Charter of Rights is not that people should not be equal and that we should not protect them but the idea that these rights are determined by nonelected judges. That is a growing concern in this country. I hear it often from my constituents when they express a particular opinion in saying: well, why can the law not be changed to do this? Sometimes, sadly, the answer is that the courts will not allow us to do that. What we find is that courts are beginning to make policy decisions that we have traditionally reserved for our parliamentarians.

In fact, what we have seen is courts in fact making laws when they create exemptions to our laws and indeed add things to our laws. It is a constitutional doctrine now that has been accepted regularly by our courts: adding words to laws that were never there or subtracting words from laws. So they in fact are amending laws, and these are the concerns that my constituents expressed to me. I am not saying that the courts should not have a role in there. What I am saying is that there is a concern that the authority of the courts is not based on a perceived base from the people's voice. So those are issues that I have seen now people raise in respect of the courts.

Certainly we have seen it over and over again in respect of the Senate. The Senate is unelected. The Senate is unresponsive. The Senate does not properly represent the views of people across Canada. It may be not the fault of the senators there but the form of government that we now have in the Senate.

So I find that whenever one has an institution, whether it is the courts or whether it is the Senate, where the representatives and the officials on that body are not elected, there is an alienation from the people that must be addressed. I say that in respect of the courts, because that was a big question in our recent Justice ministers' conference, how to make the courts more understandable to the people. How do we make the justice system more responsive to the needs of people? That is a great concern in this country.

In the same way, I say we have to look at the issue of the Senate. How then do we make the Senate more responsive to the needs of people because, whether we look at the House of Commons, the Legislatures, the Senate, or the courts, these are all institutions that were created to serve the needs of the people, and they all express themselves in different ways.

So getting back specifically then to the Senate, the issue of regional voice needs to be addressed. The issue of election needs to be addressed, and in this context the distribution of seats is certainly an important, important issue.

The report that I referred to earlier, the report of the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada, talked about not only the need for reform of the Senate but the roles and functions of a reformed Senate. It talked about an electoral system for a reformed Senate, whether the Senate should be elected by proportional representation, what the size of these constituencies should be, the timing and electoral terms.

So all of these issues I look forward to hearing from Manitobans, if they still have the desire that we have a Senate and if it should be effective and if it should be elected. Let us hear from Manitobans. Let us see if they have changed their mind from 1991 before we make any rash decisions here today in terms of calling for the abolition of this institution. If there are alternatives that would better serve the people of Canada, let us explore those alternatives before we throw away that institution, and while many Canadians have just cause to have concern in view of recent events in the Senate, we do, in fact, I think, owe a duty to our constituents to listen very closely to their points of view before we adopt this type of resolution,

I know that one of my other colleagues would like to speak on this issue. I do not know whether members across the way do, but these are very important matters, and I would certainly want to hear from them.

Mr. Denis Rocan (Gladstone): Mr. Acting Speaker, as much as I have had this great opportunity listening back and forth to this wonderful debate about our Triple-E Senate, I am going to kind of use a back-door approach, and I am going to try and get this on the record very quickly before I get shut down because it meant so much to me today, and I understand that we are getting close to shutting her down for our Christmas break.

But there is one thing that I really felt was so dear and close and wonderful and a little warm to my heart that I thought I would just try, if I could, with a little bit of indulgence from the Chair--and I see already that the table officers are getting awful jittery and they are kind of wondering what is going to happen.

I thank honourable members, those that I had an opportunity to consult with on this issue--but an organization which provides invaluable service to our province, and I am not referring to the Senate, I wish I were, one which also has great historical significance to Manitoba and to Canada as a whole. It is, of course, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the North West Mounted Police as they were first known to our province. On the 125th anniversary of the origin of the RCMP, they will look back and honour the proudest moment in their illustrious past.

I am sure all members in this House know I am referring to the great march. The great march took place in 1873 when the newly formed North West Mounted Police embarked on their very first mission. The North West Mounted Police, known to all today as the RCMP, forged 900 miles over the course of three months across wild prairie frontier, braving tornados, quicksand, tainted drinking water and more. The young Mounties had little training and few supplies, yet they persevered against insurmountable odds through hard work, gaining the trust of the plains tribes and brought justice and order to the west.

* (1650)

The great march west was a defining event in Manitoba and Canadian history. It opened the west to future generations of settlers, established strong relations with native tribes and proved to American hunters and the whiskey traders that Canada could and would defend its borders.

As this moment was integral to the evolution of Canada in opening the west and in establishing law and order, it is imperative that it be remembered and celebrated. The most respected and famous police force in the world, the RCMP, continue to be held in high esteem across this nation. As such, the RCMP will re-enact the entire great march west, mile by mile along ditches, highway road allowances and gravel roads beginning July 1, 1999. The summer march will head out on horseback from Emerson supported by wagon trains of supplies through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to Fort Edmonton.

The winter march will begin at The Forks with teams of dog sleds travelling through Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta to Calgary where Fort Whoop-Up was located. In my opinion, this is a momentous undertaking which deserves recognition and support by all members of this House.

Prior to my sitting down, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank members on both sides of the House for all your support, your friendship, and indeed I want to wish everybody a very, very Merry Christmas. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): I am sure that all members of the House thank the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for those very nice words. I would suggest to him that perhaps the Members' Statements might have been a more appropriate area to bring this up.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is of course always a pleasure to listen to our colleagues in this House, and it is always a pleasure to listen to the debates in the House as they occur, and especially the resolutions, I think, form a very prominent part of the debating process in this House. I think having private members' hours and being able to discuss Private Members' Business in this House is certainly part of the democratic process that a Legislative Assembly and a parliamentary system was put in place for.

I took some real interest in the resolution that the opposition member Mr. Maloway brought to this House in Senate reform. Having been quite involved in the Ottawa scene for many years, many people across this nation have of course talked about the effectiveness of the Senate, or, in fact, some people have criticized the performance of the Senate. But I think in large part that has been brought on by members that have either not attended or the Senate wielding the kind of parliamentary powers that they have been directed to wield by their maybe so-called political masters from time to time. I think it is unfortunate that a Senate--although I am a strong supporter of a Senate and the British parliamentary system--I think it is unfortunate that people allow themselves to be directed after they have been appointed to a Senate.

Therefore, Mr. Acting Speaker, I concur with my colleagues, the colleague from Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rocan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), who have just finished speaking to this issue and what they have said. I concur that we should not just abolish a part of our tradition--a tradition in the debates of pieces of legislation and/or issues that come before the House--and remember there are times when Parliament has in fact referred issues to the Senate for what we call a second sober assessment of a given piece of legislation and/or even at times, other business. I think it is important that we recognize the need for that or that the legislation recognizes the need for that second debate or that the Canadian Parliament in fact requires that there be another thought process given to this.

I was interested in reading some of the presentations that were brought before the commission that our government put forward a few years ago, chaired by Wally Fox-Decent, and some of the comments that were made by individuals, individuals I believe that have done a significant amount of studying as to the effectiveness and the reason for the Senate in our parliamentary system. If you really want to just take away, as this resolution suggests, just take and chop the Senate out of our parliamentary system, we might well look at--and I know that the honourable members opposite sometimes criticize the American political system--but if you will truly look at what sort of a system we might in fact have without the Senate in Ottawa, we might come very close to a presidential system that the United States uses and other countries use. I am certainly not prepared at this time to come that close to a dictatorial type of a parliamentary system.

I think that the Senate process that we have in place today in Ottawa guards against that. Although they do not have the authority to actually stop a piece of legislation or stop parliament from doing what they need to do, they do have the ability on very critical matters to delay the process long enough for the general public to voice their opinions on many of these issues and in fact bring political pressure to bear on the parliament. Parliament has demonstrated its sensitivity to that on many occasions, and therefore I believe there is a true value in this.

I truly believe that if we would appoint or elect on a more regional basis a Senate that would be truly representative of the nation as a whole, we would in fact have a much better process in place. I am a strong believer that the Senate members should be elected, and they should be elected and answerable to their respective constituents, and their final responsibility should, of course, be to the parliament, and the issues brought before the House should then be dealt with on a more nonpartisan basis than it is today. I think if that truly were done we would satisfy what the honourable member is suggesting in his resolution before he makes the final statement in the resolution.

He indicates clearly that he is worried about the cost, the $55 million cost of the clearly partisan activities of the Senate. He is also opposed to the antidemocratic process that is there now, and I concur with that. I think we could put in place a much more effective--from an economic standpoint as well as a responsible standpoint if we truly elected senators in this country.

Therefore, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would ask all members that they would stand and voice their concern about this resolution, and maybe we could consider at the end of the day an amendment that we could put before this House on this resolution.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. When this matter comes before the House again, the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) will have eight minutes remaining.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish each and every person in this Assembly, our staff, the pages, a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year.

The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until a time fixed by Madam Speaker upon the request of the government. Thank you.